7 ms·

It's honestly very difficult to imagine how a small group, no matter how talented and driven, can possibly succeed where open source giants Canonical and Mozill

It's honestly very difficult to imagine how a small group, no matter how talented and driven, can possibly succeed where open source giants Canonical and Mozilla couldn't. The only possibility I can imagine is that by leaning into a niche market, embracing low-volume but also the community that goes with it, rather than engaging in a quixotic quest to become a viable competitor to the established duopoly, Librem can become sustainable along the lines of niche laptop manufacturer System76. That doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, and it would be pretty cool.

ralmidani 9y ago
This. Free Software doesn't need to be ubiquitous or even dominant. Most end-users don't want Free Software right now. As long as the Librem 5 becomes feasible, we can worry about market share later.
- bduerst 9y ago
  Isn't market share part of making the phone feasible? Economies of scale and all that.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    The costs of developing and commercializing the components in smartphones are borne by the Android, automotive, and other high performance embedded markets. They just need to make it viable enough to assemble the components and put them in an enclosure. So it's perfectly feasible to have a small market device like this if the market price covers the cost of buying chipsets off the shelf, and assembling them.
  - ralmidani 9y ago
    Yes. However, we need to have a modest definition of "success".
- jimmies 9y ago
  When I looked back when Linux was something only enthusiasts used back 15 years ago, it does seem like so too. We never thought one day Linux would be dominant and people would go through great lengths to deal with GNU software, Firefox or OpenOffice. We counted Firefox market share when it was 1%, then 5% then 10%. Time changes and if a project actually is good, I believe the general attitude will change.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    It is anything but dominant on the desktop space, that ship has long gone. And on Android and ChromeOS, it isn't exposed to user space, so kind of irrelevant and can be changed at any moment, e.g. Fuchsia. The only place where Linux really made it, was replacing expensive proprietary UNIX servers with free (gratis) clone.
    - jimmies 9y ago
      Yep, but it doesn't matter what it technically is, the underlying principle is the same. We'd have a more secure, more understandable, more open system that replaces the proprietary ones. I have my Chromebook which runs Linux and GNU software. I have my cell phone which runs Linux and I can rebuild whatever part I desire. I have my server which runs Linux. A man can dream one day we'll have a phone with a baseband chip we can control, a RISC-V core we can program, no?
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        Surely, but as history proves since OpenMoko, that dream requires the buy-in of an OEM willing to keep the ship going, even when there is no wind to push the sails.
    - phaemon 9y ago
      The desktop ship certainly has sailed - it's lost the home market as people use phones and tablets now. > And on Android and ChromeOS, it isn't exposed to user space, so kind of irrelevant Sure, and I can run Windows applications on Wine, so Windows is kind of irrelevant. Don't be silly. > The only place where Linux really made it, was replacing expensive proprietary UNIX servers with free (gratis) clone. Except you're forgetting that these expensive UNIX servers were supposed to be replaced by Windows NT (later Windows Server) machines. So you'd have Windows at every level and could hire a point-and-grunt "sysadmin" to run it all at a much lower TCO. That's the grand vision that we've been spared. And you forgot about the embedded market. Hell, my TV runs Linux and I didn't even know (my wife chose it) until I was poking about in the menus and found a copy of the GPL. And you also omitted Cloud Servers, where Linux is hugely dominant. Oh, and Supercomputing where 499 of the Top500 Supercomputer run Linux. But yeah, apart from embedded, phones, tablets, laptops, servers, cloud servers and supercomputers...what has Linux ever done for us?
lurker12390879 9y ago
Canonical and Mozilla are too busy virtue signaling and selling their users out for profit.
sjs382 9y ago
A "success" for this group might look something like "5k devices sold", compared to a "success" for Canonical or Mozilla being larger, like "5+% of the market" or something similar.
noonespecial 9y ago
Every year it gets easier. Barring bizarre regulatory hurdles it seems almost inevitable. With carriers like freedompop coming onto the scene, its starting to get pretty easy to pop a speaker, a mic, and a sim-slot onto a raspi and having a "phone".
romaniv 9y ago
>It's honestly very difficult to imagine how a small group, no matter how talented and driven, can possibly succeed where open source giants Canonical and Mozilla couldn't. How many people worked on Xerox Alto? They had to do everything from scratch, including bootstrapping their own tools and they had far worse computing capabilities/hardware available to them at the time.
j45 9y ago
Respectfully, success isn't about technical ability alone in the mobile, timing is a big factor. Palm's webOS is an html/js based mobile phone OS that predated the JS based excitement. For example, if there was a device that focused on running progressive web apps well, there would be a market today than compared to the past when horsepower wasn't at the level it is at now. The flip side is also being able to run these sorts of operating systems on more devices. I use my phone more and more for computer replacement tasks on Android. Would be neat to be able to run the odd android app in a container, etc.
- rrix2 9y ago
  > For example, if there was a device that focused on running progressive web apps well, there would be a market today than compared to the past when horsepower wasn't at the level it is at now. How does that explain the failure of FirefoxOS?
  - fabrice_d 9y ago
    FirefoxOS lacked official support from key apps (eg. Whatsapp), and then lacked support from Mozilla leadership. With today's PWAs it would be a wonderful OS.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      I keep seeing webapps failing since Nokia introduced Web Runtime for Symbian.....
      - petecox 9y ago
        Chrome OS has proven the viability of an HTML5-based OS. In Mozilla's case it was an inability to define a market more than the technology stack. I had a Flame. While the OS started a little rough around the edges, by Firefox OS 2.5 it was perfectly usable as a daily driver with modest specs by 2017 standards.
        9y ago
shmerl 9y ago
Success in this case means having a choice to buy such device and run a free OS on it.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  "The choice to buy such device" seems to be the hard part for every previous attempt at an open source OS. Almost all of them have been "buy a Nexus/OnePlus/etc. and flash it yourself" or have had limited models that are nearly impossible to get a hold of. In my case, the problem actually doubles, because I'm on Verizon. Verizon IS required to support any compatible device, but few niche developers are willing to submit their devices for certification. :/ I suspect there would be a significant value if someone could get a free software-based module submitted to https://opendevelopment.verizonwireless.com/design-and-build/approved-modules https://opendevelopment.verizonwireless.com/design-and-build...
  - shmerl 9y ago
    > "The choice to buy such device" seems to be the hard part for every previous attempt Yes, it is very hard, and I hope they'll succeed this time. > In my case, the problem actually doubles, because I'm on Verizon. Can you ditch Verizon for T-Mobile? They are more flexible.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      T-Mobile is extremely adept at misleading advertising and it has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Beyond that, I have Verizon and AT&T towers at work, so it would be silly to not get one of them.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        I think out of these three, T-Mobile is the best. Your own example demonstrates it. Anyway, it was always the only sensible option for users of N900, N9 and so on.
Arathorn 9y ago
If the goals are relatively modest (e.g. a low bar of selling ~10K handsets), and the project is well scoped (e.g. don't try to be a me-too Android & iOS alternative, but focus purely on secure communication & web browsing), and if it builds on the better bits of FOSS that came from previous projects (Maemo, Meego, Sailfish, FFOS, Ubuntu Touch, etc)... I think this one stands a chance. (disclaimer: I'm working on the Matrix side of it).
- Arathorn 9y ago
  also, a really exciting thing here is proving that it is viable to build a FOSS-friendly hardware supply chain.
- khed 9y ago
  I am excited for the phone but I don't get having matrix as the messaging app. I don't see the value in matrix. Encryption is not on by default, which is unacceptable in a modern messaging app. It leaks metadata like a seive. None of my friends or co-workers on it. It isn't decentralized enough. They should just use briar. It hides metadata, it's encrypted, it's peer to peer. It's biggest downsides are no file transfer, no iOS client, no offline messaging. Or better yet someone should develop an app based on one of the newer concepts like vuvuzela/alpenhorn or loopix.
  - woolvalley 9y ago
    Why not port signal?
    - confounded 9y ago
      Because OWS explicitly don't want third party clients. It's a controversial decision, but IMO they have good reasons for it. This said, if there's a client that works on Debian, it should work on the Librem (perhaps with some UX work). Currently on desktop, Signal is an Electron app.
  - Arathorn 9y ago
    Encryption is only not on by default because it is still in (late) beta. Obviously by the time the Librem5 ships this will be on by default. You’re right that metadata isn’t protected serverside: so use servers you trust. In future the plan is to move to a hybrid p2p approach to fix this, but usability and features are more important given you can pick the servers to trust. https://matrix.org/~matthew/2016-12-22%20Matrix%20Balancing%20Interop%20and%20Privacy.pdf https://matrix.org/~matthew/2016-12-22%20Matrix%20Balancing%... has more details on the tradeoff. I’d be shocked if your friends and coworkers aren’t accessible via Matrix, given bridges through to Gitter, IRC, Slack etc. And if you want them to be native Matrix users, just invite them :) In terms of “not decentralised enough”... the only bits which aren’t decentralised are the node which hosts your account, and (currently) the mapping DB of email/msisdn to matrix IDs. The latter is being fixed by the community currently; the former is harder but due to be worked on next year (hopefully solved by the time the Librem5 ships). In terms of briar: it’s a great project, and perhaps it will surpass Matrix in time. But right now the battery and bandwidth requirements of running a full p2p stack on the client - as well as all the missing features you list, are a showstopper. It’s also not really set up as an open protocol/specification; just a library and app. So, Matrix is probably the best bet for now. And we’re counting on evolving at the current rate or faster over the next year in the lead up to the Librem5 shipping.
flukus 9y ago
> It's honestly very difficult to imagine how a small group, no matter how talented and driven, can possibly succeed where open source giants Canonical and Mozilla couldn't. For one thing, it looks like they are leaving much of the development up to the wider community. Gnome/Plasma will handle the UI for instance. Mozilla and Canonical tried to experiment to much with the interface and build too much of it from scratch. Even MS was to "innovative", the had all the parts in place to build a better android but they wanted to put tiles in.
digi_owl 9y ago
I dunno about Canonical, but i suspect Mozilla would have had better luck had their aimed their products towards other markets than they did.

ralmidani 9y ago

This. Free Software doesn't need to be ubiquitous or even dominant. Most end-users don't want Free Software right now. As long as the Librem 5 becomes feasible, we can worry about market share later.

bduerst 9y ago
Isn't market share part of making the phone feasible? Economies of scale and all that.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  The costs of developing and commercializing the components in smartphones are borne by the Android, automotive, and other high performance embedded markets. They just need to make it viable enough to assemble the components and put them in an enclosure. So it's perfectly feasible to have a small market device like this if the market price covers the cost of buying chipsets off the shelf, and assembling them.
- ralmidani 9y ago
  Yes. However, we need to have a modest definition of "success".
jimmies 9y ago
When I looked back when Linux was something only enthusiasts used back 15 years ago, it does seem like so too. We never thought one day Linux would be dominant and people would go through great lengths to deal with GNU software, Firefox or OpenOffice. We counted Firefox market share when it was 1%, then 5% then 10%. Time changes and if a project actually is good, I believe the general attitude will change.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  It is anything but dominant on the desktop space, that ship has long gone. And on Android and ChromeOS, it isn't exposed to user space, so kind of irrelevant and can be changed at any moment, e.g. Fuchsia. The only place where Linux really made it, was replacing expensive proprietary UNIX servers with free (gratis) clone.
  - jimmies 9y ago
    Yep, but it doesn't matter what it technically is, the underlying principle is the same. We'd have a more secure, more understandable, more open system that replaces the proprietary ones. I have my Chromebook which runs Linux and GNU software. I have my cell phone which runs Linux and I can rebuild whatever part I desire. I have my server which runs Linux. A man can dream one day we'll have a phone with a baseband chip we can control, a RISC-V core we can program, no?
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Surely, but as history proves since OpenMoko, that dream requires the buy-in of an OEM willing to keep the ship going, even when there is no wind to push the sails.
  - phaemon 9y ago
    The desktop ship certainly has sailed - it's lost the home market as people use phones and tablets now. > And on Android and ChromeOS, it isn't exposed to user space, so kind of irrelevant Sure, and I can run Windows applications on Wine, so Windows is kind of irrelevant. Don't be silly. > The only place where Linux really made it, was replacing expensive proprietary UNIX servers with free (gratis) clone. Except you're forgetting that these expensive UNIX servers were supposed to be replaced by Windows NT (later Windows Server) machines. So you'd have Windows at every level and could hire a point-and-grunt "sysadmin" to run it all at a much lower TCO. That's the grand vision that we've been spared. And you forgot about the embedded market. Hell, my TV runs Linux and I didn't even know (my wife chose it) until I was poking about in the menus and found a copy of the GPL. And you also omitted Cloud Servers, where Linux is hugely dominant. Oh, and Supercomputing where 499 of the Top500 Supercomputer run Linux. But yeah, apart from embedded, phones, tablets, laptops, servers, cloud servers and supercomputers...what has Linux ever done for us?

lurker12390879 9y ago

Canonical and Mozilla are too busy virtue signaling and selling their users out for profit.

sjs382 9y ago

A "success" for this group might look something like "5k devices sold", compared to a "success" for Canonical or Mozilla being larger, like "5+% of the market" or something similar.

noonespecial 9y ago

Every year it gets easier. Barring bizarre regulatory hurdles it seems almost inevitable. With carriers like freedompop coming onto the scene, its starting to get pretty easy to pop a speaker, a mic, and a sim-slot onto a raspi and having a "phone".

romaniv 9y ago

>It's honestly very difficult to imagine how a small group, no matter how talented and driven, can possibly succeed where open source giants Canonical and Mozilla couldn't. How many people worked on Xerox Alto? They had to do everything from scratch, including bootstrapping their own tools and they had far worse computing capabilities/hardware available to them at the time.

j45 9y ago

Respectfully, success isn't about technical ability alone in the mobile, timing is a big factor. Palm's webOS is an html/js based mobile phone OS that predated the JS based excitement. For example, if there was a device that focused on running progressive web apps well, there would be a market today than compared to the past when horsepower wasn't at the level it is at now. The flip side is also being able to run these sorts of operating systems on more devices. I use my phone more and more for computer replacement tasks on Android. Would be neat to be able to run the odd android app in a container, etc.

rrix2 9y ago
> For example, if there was a device that focused on running progressive web apps well, there would be a market today than compared to the past when horsepower wasn't at the level it is at now. How does that explain the failure of FirefoxOS?
- fabrice_d 9y ago
  FirefoxOS lacked official support from key apps (eg. Whatsapp), and then lacked support from Mozilla leadership. With today's PWAs it would be a wonderful OS.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    I keep seeing webapps failing since Nokia introduced Web Runtime for Symbian.....
    - petecox 9y ago
      Chrome OS has proven the viability of an HTML5-based OS. In Mozilla's case it was an inability to define a market more than the technology stack. I had a Flame. While the OS started a little rough around the edges, by Firefox OS 2.5 it was perfectly usable as a daily driver with modest specs by 2017 standards.
      - 9y ago

shmerl 9y ago

Success in this case means having a choice to buy such device and run a free OS on it.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
"The choice to buy such device" seems to be the hard part for every previous attempt at an open source OS. Almost all of them have been "buy a Nexus/OnePlus/etc. and flash it yourself" or have had limited models that are nearly impossible to get a hold of. In my case, the problem actually doubles, because I'm on Verizon. Verizon IS required to support any compatible device, but few niche developers are willing to submit their devices for certification. :/ I suspect there would be a significant value if someone could get a free software-based module submitted to https://opendevelopment.verizonwireless.com/design-and-build/approved-modules https://opendevelopment.verizonwireless.com/design-and-build...
- shmerl 9y ago
  > "The choice to buy such device" seems to be the hard part for every previous attempt Yes, it is very hard, and I hope they'll succeed this time. > In my case, the problem actually doubles, because I'm on Verizon. Can you ditch Verizon for T-Mobile? They are more flexible.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    T-Mobile is extremely adept at misleading advertising and it has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Beyond that, I have Verizon and AT&T towers at work, so it would be silly to not get one of them.
    - shmerl 9y ago
      I think out of these three, T-Mobile is the best. Your own example demonstrates it. Anyway, it was always the only sensible option for users of N900, N9 and so on.

Arathorn 9y ago

If the goals are relatively modest (e.g. a low bar of selling ~10K handsets), and the project is well scoped (e.g. don't try to be a me-too Android & iOS alternative, but focus purely on secure communication & web browsing), and if it builds on the better bits of FOSS that came from previous projects (Maemo, Meego, Sailfish, FFOS, Ubuntu Touch, etc)... I think this one stands a chance. (disclaimer: I'm working on the Matrix side of it).

Arathorn 9y ago
also, a really exciting thing here is proving that it is viable to build a FOSS-friendly hardware supply chain.
khed 9y ago
I am excited for the phone but I don't get having matrix as the messaging app. I don't see the value in matrix. Encryption is not on by default, which is unacceptable in a modern messaging app. It leaks metadata like a seive. None of my friends or co-workers on it. It isn't decentralized enough. They should just use briar. It hides metadata, it's encrypted, it's peer to peer. It's biggest downsides are no file transfer, no iOS client, no offline messaging. Or better yet someone should develop an app based on one of the newer concepts like vuvuzela/alpenhorn or loopix.
- woolvalley 9y ago
  Why not port signal?
  - confounded 9y ago
    Because OWS explicitly don't want third party clients. It's a controversial decision, but IMO they have good reasons for it. This said, if there's a client that works on Debian, it should work on the Librem (perhaps with some UX work). Currently on desktop, Signal is an Electron app.
- Arathorn 9y ago
  Encryption is only not on by default because it is still in (late) beta. Obviously by the time the Librem5 ships this will be on by default. You’re right that metadata isn’t protected serverside: so use servers you trust. In future the plan is to move to a hybrid p2p approach to fix this, but usability and features are more important given you can pick the servers to trust. https://matrix.org/~matthew/2016-12-22%20Matrix%20Balancing%20Interop%20and%20Privacy.pdf https://matrix.org/~matthew/2016-12-22%20Matrix%20Balancing%... has more details on the tradeoff. I’d be shocked if your friends and coworkers aren’t accessible via Matrix, given bridges through to Gitter, IRC, Slack etc. And if you want them to be native Matrix users, just invite them :) In terms of “not decentralised enough”... the only bits which aren’t decentralised are the node which hosts your account, and (currently) the mapping DB of email/msisdn to matrix IDs. The latter is being fixed by the community currently; the former is harder but due to be worked on next year (hopefully solved by the time the Librem5 ships). In terms of briar: it’s a great project, and perhaps it will surpass Matrix in time. But right now the battery and bandwidth requirements of running a full p2p stack on the client - as well as all the missing features you list, are a showstopper. It’s also not really set up as an open protocol/specification; just a library and app. So, Matrix is probably the best bet for now. And we’re counting on evolving at the current rate or faster over the next year in the lead up to the Librem5 shipping.

flukus 9y ago

> It's honestly very difficult to imagine how a small group, no matter how talented and driven, can possibly succeed where open source giants Canonical and Mozilla couldn't. For one thing, it looks like they are leaving much of the development up to the wider community. Gnome/Plasma will handle the UI for instance. Mozilla and Canonical tried to experiment to much with the interface and build too much of it from scratch. Even MS was to "innovative", the had all the parts in place to build a better android but they wanted to put tiles in.

digi_owl 9y ago

I dunno about Canonical, but i suspect Mozilla would have had better luck had their aimed their products towards other markets than they did.